From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 05:09:02 EDT
Re: fine tuningHoward wrote in part:
>...My point is that ID advocates...split this into two parts:
>1) the universe IS cosmologically fine-tuned in such a way that the full range of PHYSICAL STRUCTURES (atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, etc) could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14 billion years) and provide a suitable PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT for carbon-based life forms to function. This is counted as evidence that the universe was "intelligently designed." The ID argument here is FOR the idea that the universe was cosmologically fine-tuned for the evolution of a suitable physical environment for life.
>2) the universe IS NOT biologically fine-tuned in such a way that the full range of life forms could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14 billion years) without additional occasional episodes of non-natural, form-conferring action called "intelligent design." The ID argument here is AGAINST the idea that the universe was biologically fine-tuned for the evolution of life, even if it was cosmologically fine tuned for the evolution of a suitable physical environment for life to function.
>I see this approach both as an inconsistent use of the term "intelligent design" and an inconsistent rhetorical strategy.
Instructive insight. I hadn't thought of it that way.
I'd prefer to keep my distance from both ID and "creation research" as science. As sources of details that one might be able to admire through faith, however, I'd like to stay remotely aware of ID results.
Might the ID proponents be able to justify their perspective (relative to your comments above) by saying that the physical world is vastly simpler than the biological zoo, so that we can justifiably glorify God for the cosmic fine tuning while at the same time we search for signs of his special intervention in the not-so-finely-tuned bio world? That is, maybe the bio world is just too complex and messy to fine-tune in advance. (Maybe the physical world also needed intervention despite the degree of fine tuning we see.)
Fine tuning of the physical world is well established, and many of the results were relatively easy to come by. Bio history still has gaping holes. I'm not confident people are ever going to have good naturalistic models for such things as the origin of life or human consciousness. Scientists as scientists can never say God did it, but people of faith who believe God does more than sit around and watch can say God did it without fear of contradiction, at least for the time being.
Why should believers even want to say God intervened? Is this the same as the evil desire for a sign? In this case I think the motivation to say that God intervened is to counter those who say God is irrelevant. God is not irrelevant to believers, but believers need a way to defend their faith against unbelievers. Defenses based on gaps by themselves will not convince anyone, but as long as there are clearly identifiable gaps of any sort, unbelievers cannot be sure they are right. This is assuredly a weak defense, but what are the alternatives?
If we can't come up with a convincing witness to the activity of God in the world, the best alternative would be a powerful witness to the work of God in our lives. But this would all be spiritual and of necessity personal. Who would believe?
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 05:06:18 EDT